DRM in HTML5 makes sense, as much as open source people might hate it.What we have now is plugins to give DRM. If there was no DRM in HTML5, there would still be plugins. Excluding DRM from HTML 5 doesnt mean people won't use DRM, it means they won't use HTML5.

Since it's part of the standard, that means Firefox should support it as much as possible. HTML5 with DRM is better than HTML5 with no DRM, and then 500 plugins for various websites for their DRM.

DRM won't go away whether HTML5 does or doesn't include it, and whether Firefox does or doesn't include it.

Does Firefox yet have the kind of sandboxing needed to prevent this crap from screwing up the entire browser? I don't worry too much about it in Chrome, because this useless junk can at least be isolated away from everything else.

It's just sad that after all these years there are still people who think DRM accomplishes anything.

One can only hope it's a completely faulty implementation that doesn't actually enforce any DRM.

They aren't implementing it, they're deferring to a third party implementation. It's a tiny bit similar to the way the flash plugin works now, only it just does one thing and is a heck of a lot more restricted.

As mentioned in the article the closest thing to it in Firefox today is its use of the OS's H.264 video decoder.

Let the content producers abandon the web... then be dragged back kicking and screaming when video piracy devours them the way it devoured the record companies.

HA! Funny person.

DRM amazingly dosen't stop piracy, believe it or not. Most of the pirates either employ side-channel attacks to get at the protected media in a way that DRM has no chance at all to stop, or for the DRM that isn't implement so well, they just break it.

Evidence is in Video Games, Music, and Film.

HTML5's DRM is technically interesting, but I guarantee the pirates will crack it in reasonably short order. I don't say this because I condone piracy, but rather because I recognize that some pirates are actually rather bright people who happen to be on the other side of the moral and legal line that the very bright people who are creating this DRM setup are on.

I also think that DRM isn't the solution we're looking for. If we really want to marginalize piracy, the business model that a producing entity uses probably needs to change. There's no reason that media consumers and media producers have to be fighting this war with each other.

A great example is - and I hate to bring this up, I feel the downvotes coming a mile away - the "Free to Play" movement in games. Many pirates simply work to get the software; the monetization setup in Free to Play is, 'ok, here, have the software. You'll just pay us as you go along.' It's either impossible, or a complete waste of time to pirate a free to play game (unless you hate yourself, in which case knock yourself out.)

This is likely not an entirely appropriate approach for movies and music, though. Still, that's something that the creators/producers/distributors need to get on figuring out. All of this to-do about DRM is really just wasting everyone's time and energy, and we could be doing much more productive things than creating some obstructive scheme that Joe Blackbeard is just going to crack in a month (yes, that is my prediction for how long it will take for HTML5's DRM to fall.)

For a group that's committed to open standards and open source, this was a difficult decision. DRM, which tends to restrict fair use access to copyrighted content, and closed source modules both run counter to Mozilla's goals.

I strongly disagree. They took a pragmatic approach, but that is different from a sensible approach. With this approach, video I should lawfully be able to view (e.g. a Netflix stream) will not work if I build a browser for a platform that is not supported by a closed source component. If that isn't reinventing the wheel, then it comes very close anyway, and it is a blow towards the interoperability and open platform that web standards were supposed to be.

That said, I can't fault Mozilla for not doing it. They need to play the game if they want to be able to change it, and, as the article correctly notes, driving forces aren't behind them.

Browser company fearful that users would follow Netflix to other browsers.

Wouldn't lose me. I watch netflix on Roku or windows 8 metro app on my tablet. Even using android app on my phone. I do not watch netflix in a web browser. If I stream video in a web browser, I am probably on a service that does not have an app for one of those 3 devices and is a site unlikely to even use DRM.

I'd personally argue that free to play in games isn't great for the consumer in all cases though. It results in a ton of un-played games, micro transactions and lack of involvement. I'd personally rather pay for something decent (emphasis on pay for something decent and not crap) that is worth my time and might actually be completed.

No DRM would be great if people were honest, companies weren't shortsighted etc but human nature is unlikely to fix short term. I just don't see what option a company streaming content has to get the rights to do it without enabling DRM? I know that everything is pirated on release and can be obtained very easily but at least the value of the Netflix, Prime, NowTV etc means that its almost more hassle than its worth. Sadly I say that having a friend who drives me nuts, slagging off anything that isn't a £1600 Apple product but who never pays for a single thing he watches, not a rental, cinema viewing or even the tiny £7 a month Netflix Price. This person isn't unique, expects the entire film industry to be working for them and then has the temerity to slag off films he has pirated. I wish someone would go to his workplace, copy his work, sell it for free and see how he feels about that. Yes DRM is a pain for those of us who value someone's work, but what is the solution in an age of people who expect things for free?

DRM amazingly dosen't stop piracy, believe it or not. Most of the pirates either employ side-channel attacks to get at the protected media in a way that DRM has no chance at all to stop, or for the DRM that isn't implement so well, they just break it.

DRM isn't about stopping piracy. To take your example, I have personally played pirated free to play games, so pirated because you got all the addon costumes for free (plus levelling curve was much reduced). This is a fact of life; no matter what pricing model you use, some part of the populace will not be willing to pay it, even if it is free.

No, DRM is about implementing a business model. It is to implement the glory days of media distribution, where people would buy LaserDisc, VHS, DVD and BluRay versions of Star Wars. It's to sidestep the whole issue that digital data can last forever, unlike a physical disc. What good is 150 years of copyright if one copy you sell can be passed down through the generations on the family cloud?

With DRM, you have such awesome features as planned obsoleteness (this service is no longer available), platform resale (now for Windows Phone), account lock-in (this person is dead/account deleted. Please buy again), pay-per-view, different price model depending on screen (unlock on TV for only 99¢ extra) and whatever other restriction that a focus group in a meeting room can cook up.

DRM is inconvenient by design. It is made to be inconvenient, so that you can pay the source of the inconvenience to (temporarily) remove the inconvenience. That is creating a business model.

For a group that's committed to open standards and open source, this was a difficult decision. DRM, which tends to restrict fair use access to copyrighted content, and closed source modules both run counter to Mozilla's goals.

Funny how psychology works. I have no problem with Netflix using DRM, because it's very clear that their offering is like a "channel", to which you have unlimited access during the time you pay for the subscription.

On the other hand, I highly resent DRM in things like ebooks that I've paid for, because I've bought them and they should be MINE, perpetually.

I strongly disagree. They took a pragmatic approach, but that is different from a sensible approach. With this approach, video I should lawfully be able to view (e.g. a Netflix stream) will not work if I build a browser for a platform that is not supported by a closed source component. If that isn't reinventing the wheel, then it comes very close anyway, and it is a blow towards the interoperability and open platform that web standards were supposed to be.

In other words, it will work exactly the same way as it does now. You can't view Netflix in Firefox unless you install a proprietary browser plugin from Adobe. Going forwards, Adobe will only produce the decryption part, instead of the entire experience.

I don't see what the big deal is. This is just replacing something bad (netscape plugins), with something less bad.

It's important for a browser to support the full HTML 5 specification, like other major Web standards, and it's understandable that such standards will include provision for the protection of content protected by copyright and at risk of piracy.

I also recognize the legitimacy of copyright laws. Where I part company with some media conglomerates is this: I believe that copyrights do not reflect a natural law right; they're simply a social agreement to provide a monopoly in return for the social benefit of more production of artworks (or, in the case of patent laws, inventions). A social agreement we had every right not to enter into if we didn't think the benefits were worth it.

So legislation on extending copyright terms, or measures like the DMCA, can and should be debated on their merits, on their benefits for the whole of society, instead of being rubber-stamped on the premise that, after all, stealing is always wrong.

But that misgiving on certain copyright excesses isn't enough to make me want to rage at Mozilla for this.

I strongly disagree. They took a pragmatic approach, but that is different from a sensible approach. With this approach, video I should lawfully be able to view (e.g. a Netflix stream) will not work if I build a browser for a platform that is not supported by a closed source component. If that isn't reinventing the wheel, then it comes very close anyway, and it is a blow towards the interoperability and open platform that web standards were supposed to be.

In other words, it will work exactly the same way as it does now. You can't view Netflix in Firefox unless you install a proprietary browser plugin from Adobe. Going forwards, Adobe will only produce the decryption part, instead of the entire experience.

I don't see what the big deal is. This is just replacing something bad (netscape plugins), with something less bad.

The "big deal", if you wish to phrase it so, is that there was a chance to replace something bad with something good. This is what Mozilla was advocating. Unfortunately, without backing of consumers, Mozilla was essentially proposing to content producers to ease restrictions with no fiscal incentive. That doesn't work, so we're left with, as you say, something less bad (I withhold judgement of how much less bad it is until I see how often this closed source component doesn't get timely or convenient updates that don't install the Ask toolbar or whatever they're punting today).

The sky is not falling, people aren't dying, but interoperability has taken a definite hit. With this, HTML DRM is a certainty, and there is no truly open source implementation of HTML.

[IP law is a] social agreement we had every right not to enter into if we didn't think the benefits were worth it.

Speak for yourself. personally I wasn't alive hundreds of years ago and took no part in making that social agreement.

I follow IP law because I generally don't want to run afoul of the law. But I don't support it in any way and will not be happy until it has been eliminated altogether. My own work is released under a license that strips me of as many rights as possible.

The moment a corporate scheme whatever it is becomes excessively costly and/or obtrusive is the moment people will seek alternatives. The essence of these services is all to provide a service and save people time over scouring the net for free alternatives. Been that way since Jobs started iTunes, which is why he didn't worry about pirating music because he "undersold" free.

Of course some always will because they'd rather spend time then money.

Which all the protections schemes in the world can't stop in the end because you fundamentally cannot secure data while also sharing it. Worse the more widespread you are the bigger a target you are and the more "threats" you will have to counter successfully. Fail and your wide open. And since production of data is fundamentally easy, you can't prevent people from just making a clean version of whatever you put into data form.

Unless you can somehow completely secure the technical know-how of computer science ensuring its completely loyalty in addition to having a completely monopoly on software and hardware you will never wall that garden high enough, much less put a roof over it. And at this point you'd need to be a global monopoly to even get started.

Frankly it seems likely the entire fundamental business model of entertainment will have to be revised. Never actually pay for content and it is commissioned via patrons and paid for in advance (ie: kickstarter) or via advertisement right in the content which is just a different form of patronage.

Course all the middlemen of the current model will loose out because such a thing far more heavily favors going directly to content producers themselves without their services.

Let the content producers abandon the web... then be dragged back kicking and screaming when video piracy devours them the way it devoured the record companies.

HA! Funny person.

DRM amazingly dosen't stop piracy, believe it or not. Most of the pirates either employ side-channel attacks to get at the protected media in a way that DRM has no chance at all to stop, or for the DRM that isn't implement so well, they just break it.

Evidence is in Video Games, Music, and Film.

HTML5's DRM is technically interesting, but I guarantee the pirates will crack it in reasonably short order. I don't say this because I condone piracy, but rather because I recognize that some pirates are actually rather bright people who happen to be on the other side of the moral and legal line that the very bright people who are creating this DRM setup are on.

I also think that DRM isn't the solution we're looking for. If we really want to marginalize piracy, the business model that a producing entity uses probably needs to change. There's no reason that media consumers and media producers have to be fighting this war with each other.

A great example is - and I hate to bring this up, I feel the downvotes coming a mile away - the "Free to Play" movement in games. Many pirates simply work to get the software; the monetization setup in Free to Play is, 'ok, here, have the software. You'll just pay us as you go along.' It's either impossible, or a complete waste of time to pirate a free to play game (unless you hate yourself, in which case knock yourself out.)

This is likely not an entirely appropriate approach for movies and music, though. Still, that's something that the creators/producers/distributors need to get on figuring out. All of this to-do about DRM is really just wasting everyone's time and energy, and we could be doing much more productive things than creating some obstructive scheme that Joe Blackbeard is just going to crack in a month (yes, that is my prediction for how long it will take for HTML5's DRM to fall.)

Agree and upvoted, especially the part where you thought you'd be down voted. Candy crush delivers the game for free and wants to have you buy crap. On android, using root with a hack allows me to effectively buy stuff for free. It's pretty fun giving king the finger.